Bit'O'Gristle:The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

Living a life in fear that I'll get shot is not freedom. Since it is clear that government is unable to protect us from gun owners, I think it falls on the gun owning community. The gun owning community are the ones who created the problem by making it easy for every wacko can buy a gun so they can be the ones to step up and solve it. What should they do to solve the problem? I don't know, it isn't my problem. Responsible gun owners are the ones who need to step up and fix the problem they created. What's their solutions? ... crickets ...

Bit'O'Gristle:I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

So do you choose to defend your life, or your spawn's life by choosing a method which explicitly damages or ends life, innocent or guilty? Do you believe only your lives are of any value, not anyone else's? Just asking, I don't have any problem with crazy straight people shooting each other and lowering the population count.

Cymbal:Bit'O'Gristle: I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

Gun buyback programs invalidate your entire post. You have anything else to share with the class?

Gun buybacks are a great way for the savvy gun enthusiast to make some serious money.

Muta:Bit'O'Gristle: The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

Living a life in fear that I'll get shot is not freedom. Since it is clear that government is unable to protect us from gun owners, I think it falls on the gun owning community. The gun owning community are the ones who created the problem by making it easy for every wacko can buy a gun so they can be the ones to step up and solve it. What should they do to solve the problem? I don't know, it isn't my problem. Responsible gun owners are the ones who need to step up and fix the problem they created. What's their solutions? ... crickets ...

Don't mind him. He had to stop posting so he could clean up where he piddled himself.

upndn:What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

Bit'O'Gristle:My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse.

Are you deranged? So you think it's ok to drop a loaded gun into a purse? Do you think she'll be able to either find it when she needs it or if she does find it take the time to get all the grim and shiat out of the barrel before firing it or accidentally discharges it? Guns should not be thrown around willy nilly.

Bit'O'Gristle:It's my bet they will find the gunman either at the business with a round in his head, or at home with the same. These cowards generally kill themselves after murdering their families or co-workers. Sad sad day indeed.

Le Bomb Suprize:Look, it's really quite simple. Just get rid of all the gun laws and restrictions. Good, law abiding citizens will never use their guns to commit an act of violence except in extreme cases of self defense, and criminals or the mentally unstable will not obey the laws in the first place.

The fact that many criminals or mentally unstable people APPEAR to be good, law abiding citizens until the moment they use guns to commit violence is a non starter, since clearly they are NOT good, law abiding citizens. See?

TNel:Bit'O'Gristle: My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse.

Are you deranged? So you think it's ok to drop a loaded gun into a purse? Do you think she'll be able to either find it when she needs it or if she does find it take the time to get all the grim and shiat out of the barrel before firing it or accidentally discharges it? Guns should not be thrown around willy nilly.

I am just surprised there is a college that allows guns. None here do on campus. Everyone in the dorms use to keep their guns in their cars, which isn't the best way to keep them secure

mudpants:rebelyell2006: willfullyobscure: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Show me ONE car accident where both drivers were sober, legally licensed, insured and didn't make any mistakes or take any risks.

Well, this is Georgia, so I am sure there are plenty of instances of multiple-car accidents after someone hits a deer, or a fallen limb from a tree, etc. Or an at-fault pedestrian or bicyclist starts an accident, etc.

In the entire state of Ohio in 1895, there were only two cars on the road, and the drivers of these two cars crashed into each other. There was no mention of drugs or alcohol and there were no licenses or insurance available at the time

Clearly a case of negligent discarge on one or both party's side. I've been driving since I was 9 and I've never had a negligent discarge and neither has anyone I know, so i think that's probably a fluke.

willfullyobscure:NickelP: willfullyobscure: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Show me ONE car accident where both drivers were sober, legally licensed, insured and didn't make any mistakes or take any risks.

What about that highway that got hit by the tornado? Its pretty tough to fault a driver for that

Nope. Responsible drivers listen to the storm warnings and emergency broadcasts and get off the road.

Related story. In Little Rock for training. (Army training, sir!). Two of our soldiers where out on the road when the tornado sirens started sounding. They are just driving along going "What is that noise?" and "Why did traffic get so light all of a sudden? There is no one else on the room" And then one rolls down the window and starts filming the sky "Wow, look how fast those clouds are going."

When they rolled onto base, security didn't even check IDs. He just yelled "Get to shelter!"

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table.

What was it? I like a nice .380 PPK for a walk around firearm, it's a fantastic size, anyone can shoot one; and it is was good enough for James Bond, it's good enough for me

MFK:Bit'O'Gristle: dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

yeah... like military bases.

Look dude, no matter how much you want it, we're not going to arm this society to the teeth just because you people have these weird gun fantasies.

HeartBurnKid:exatron: Babwa Wawa: Why anyone would assume that the location of Cobb County is common knowledge is beyond me.

The story is from a local TV station's website. Presumably, most people in its broadcast area know where it is.

Yes, but it's on the internet, where people from around the world will read it. It only takes four additional keystrokes (", GA") to solve that problem completely, which seems well worth the effort to me.

/I only know where Cobb County is thanks to the WWF

I get the same feeling every time I see someone display a phone number without an area code.

Muta:Bit'O'Gristle: The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

pueblonative:upndn: What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

/I need my coffee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

Seems to be four.

I believe that's the FBI's criteria as well. Also, in looking through Wiki's list of rampage killers, workplace killers and school killers, the overwhelming majority of them either take their own lives or are shot dead by police. This holds true in similar massacres overseas as well, so it's not the slightest bit surprising that this asshole offed himself at the end.

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that gun ownership implies increased safety while studies on gun ownership from UC Davis, NIH, the American Journal of Public Health, Oxford, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all found correlation between gun ownership within a household unit and statistically relevant increases in the risk of being the victim of homicide, suicide and accidental shooting.

I don't think your opinion is more valid than theirs at all. Opinions can be wrong when they're formed in relation to objective and measurable things, as is the case here.

Your opinion, then, seems to be, simply, invalid. If you still want her to carry a gun, fine, but "safety" would not appear to be a valid reason for holding that opinion, making it invalid.

Psylence:Cymbal: Bit'O'Gristle: I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

<snip>

Gun buyback programs invalidate your entire post. You have anything else to share with the class?

Gun buybacks are a great way for the ...

I wish the "authorities" would have a gun buyback in my area. I have a bunch of old junk I have picked up at auctions over the years (hey, sometimes you find a gem) that I wouldn't mind selling off. Might even allow me to finance that SBR I've been looking at.

Therefore guns are harmless and nothing could have been done or should have been done to keep the shooter from having one. And I'm sure the injuries were just bruises, maybe just a scratch or a broken fingernail, nothing permanent or disabling. And there definitely won't be any long-term trauma for any of those involved, or their families, or the community. I'd say "meh" just about sums it up, another day in gun-land.

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that gun ownership implies increased safety while studies on gun ownership from UC Davis, NIH, the American Journal of Public Health, Oxford, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all found correlation between gun ownership within a household unit and statistically relevant increases in the risk of being the victim of homicide, suicide and accidental shooting.

I don't think your opinion is more valid than theirs at all. Opinions can be wrong when they're formed in relation to objective and measurable things, as is the case here.

Your opinion, then, seems to be, simply, invalid. If you still want her to carry a gun, fine, but "safety" would not appear to be a valid reason for holding that opinion, making it invalid.

Click Click D'oh:Marcintosh: You are absolutely correct - there is no end in sight because there will be no end to this because there is always money in this. people have been murdering each other since we learned how to pick up sticks.

FTFY

Which is why we should go back to sticks, or stones, or name calling. You might get a pretty bad contusion or some broken bones, but your probability of surviving a stick attack are far greater than one from a gun.

ariseatex:KingKauff: upndn: What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

/I need my coffee

Duh, mass shootings occur during church.

CSB: I used to be a Catholic Church musician (before I came out); our church had just got a new organ and we were playing with the features to see what all we had. We hit one setting that wasn't labeled and started getting automatic rifle fire sounds on different notes.

We decided to save that one for the next time Monsignor did a 30-minute homily.

AspectRatio:Therefore guns are harmless and nothing could have been done or should have been done to keep the shooter from having one. And I'm sure the injuries were just bruises, maybe just a scratch or a broken fingernail, nothing permanent or disabling. And there definitely won't be any long-term trauma for any of those involved, or their families, or the community. I'd say "meh" just about sums it up, another day in gun-land.

We've had these arguments. We've re-had these arguments. No matter how much pro-gun people scream from the rooftops that we want to help and propose serious alternatives, it gets drowned out by lobbying, and by people like you who don't ever think it's enough.

So, yeah, Meh. I'm tired of having these arguments, and while i'm sorry for the victims, I'm also resigned to the fact that my options are to fight tooth and nail to maintain what we have because no laws will ever come about that listens to our side, or give in and kiss our 2A rights good bye.

People die, and people kill each other. They have been doing that since the dawn of time. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that it happens, because the tools change, the evil stays the same, and as of yet no one has found a way to stop making people want to kill each other.

TNel:Bit'O'Gristle: My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse.

Are you deranged? So you think it's ok to drop a loaded gun into a purse? Do you think she'll be able to either find it when she needs it or if she does find it take the time to get all the grim and shiat out of the barrel before firing it or accidentally discharges it? Guns should not be thrown around willy nilly.

You are not aware that there are purses are made with built-in holsters for accident prevention/easy access.

Cymbal:Which is why we should go back to sticks, or stones, or name calling. You might get a pretty bad contusion or some broken bones, but your probability of surviving a stick attack are far greater than one from a gun.

Sweet! We can go back to carrying swords! Now people won't make fun of me for carrying around a sword!

MFK:Bit'O'Gristle:/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

yeah... like military bases.

Look dude, no matter how much you want it, we're not going to arm this society to the teeth just because you people have these weird gun fantasies.

Military bases are actually gun free zones- they have been for a good 20 years or so. That makes them 'soft targets.' If the president cared about our troops, he'd rescind that little directive.

Kit Fister:AspectRatio: Therefore guns are harmless and nothing could have been done or should have been done to keep the shooter from having one. And I'm sure the injuries were just bruises, maybe just a scratch or a broken fingernail, nothing permanent or disabling. And there definitely won't be any long-term trauma for any of those involved, or their families, or the community. I'd say "meh" just about sums it up, another day in gun-land.

We've had these arguments. We've re-had these arguments. No matter how much pro-gun people scream from the rooftops that we want to help and propose serious alternatives, it gets drowned out by lobbying, and by people like you who don't ever think it's enough.

So, yeah, Meh. I'm tired of having these arguments, and while i'm sorry for the victims, I'm also resigned to the fact that my options are to fight tooth and nail to maintain what we have because no laws will ever come about that listens to our side, or give in and kiss our 2A rights good bye.

People die, and people kill each other. They have been doing that since the dawn of time. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that it happens, because the tools change, the evil stays the same, and as of yet no one has found a way to stop making people want to kill each other.

As far as I've been able to tell, the only "serious alternative" proposed by the pro-gun lobby is "MOAR GUNS EVERYWHERE".

upndn:What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

/I need my coffee

As a former student of "new math", avid news fan and adult, my understanding is this:

1 - For the press, a "mass shooting" is a term used when the number of casualties is still not clear but it is clearly more than two, not including the gun man, who will remain singular (as in "6 reported killed, not including the shooter"). The number of shots fired is of no interest in defining a mass shooting and will be used only by the police and, later, during gun-related discussions ("was it necessary to fire 100 rounds to stop one person?"). The number of people killed does not define a "mass shooting" - that would include both killed and wounded. IN SUM: "Mass shooting" is a situational reference for "lots of gunfire with more than two people hurt/killed.....stay tuned"

2 - "A couple" vs "A few" - while generally understood that the former means "two" and the latter "something less than ten" you should consider context: "Yes, she has a couple of kids" vs "Officer? I had a couple of beers" and "John? The boss would like a few minutes" vs "I need a few things from the store, dear"

3 - A "mass" is less than "a couple" or "a few" in that it is one mass - made up of several things - ie, a cancerous mass, a mass protest, a mass shooting. So, for news media, the math is - one mass shooting (early report), "a couple" of persons of interest" and "a few" remain in the hospital.

Clearly, a question suited for Common Core Math standards.

What it could do for the understanding of "some" - and not that frustratingly concise "sum"